↓ Skip to main content

Nebulised dornase alfa versus placebo or hypertonic saline in adult critically ill patients: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Nebulised dornase alfa versus placebo or hypertonic saline in adult critically ill patients: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
Published in
Systematic Reviews, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0142-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Casper Claudius, Anders Perner, Morten Hylander Møller

Abstract

Nebulised dornase alfa is used off-label in critically ill patients. We aimed to assess the benefits and harms of nebulised dornase alfa versus placebo, no prophylaxis, or hypertonic saline on patient-important outcome measures in adult critically ill patients. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) using the Cochrane Collaboration methodology. Eligible trials were randomised clinical trials comparing nebulised dornase alfa with placebo, no prophylaxis, or hypertonic saline. The predefined outcome measures were all-cause mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay, and adverse events. Two reviewers independently assessed trials for inclusion, data extraction, and risk of bias. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by conventional cumulative meta-analysis, and the robustness of the primary estimate was assessed by TSA. Two trials (n = 63) were included; both were judged to have high risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality (random effects model RR (95 % CI) 0.73 (0.09-5.77); P = 0.24; I (2) = 30 %). TSA could not be conducted because less than 1 % of the required information size had been accrued. None of the two trials reported adequate and detailed data on any of the secondary outcome measures. We found very low quantity and quality of evidence for use of nebulised dornase alfa in adult critically ill patients in this systematic review with meta-analysis. The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), no. CRD442015016047 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 21%
Researcher 4 17%
Other 2 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Other 5 21%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 46%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 4 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 December 2018.
All research outputs
#13,374,110
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,394
of 2,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,648
of 287,830 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#24
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,048 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 287,830 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.